1962 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2004 Land Rover Range Rover
To start off, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 42 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 6,388 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 380 kg more than 1962 Cadillac Sixty.
Because 2004 Land Rover Range Rover is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1962 Cadillac Sixty. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 1962 Cadillac Sixty (582 Nm) has 142 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Land Rover Range Rover. (440 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac Sixty will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Land Rover Range Rover.
Compare all specifications:
| 1962 Cadillac Sixty | 2004 Land Rover Range Rover | |
| Make | Cadillac | Land Rover |
| Model | Sixty | Range Rover |
| Year Released | 1962 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 4398 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 282 HP |
| Torque | 582 Nm | 440 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 92.1 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 82.7 mm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2135 kg | 2515 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 4960 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1870 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2890 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 100 L |
